If the resurrection did not occur, who / what was Jesus?

[Zzyzx]

.
There is some reason to doubt biblical tales that Jesus Christ, identified as a godman, died and came back to life (as discussed in many threads). Some theologians regard the resurrection to be less than literal.

Questions for debate:

1. If the resurrection did not occur, who / what was Jesus?

2. Was Jesus supernatural?

3. What is the meaning of “son of god”?

[twobitsmedia]

.


1. If the resurrection did not occur, who / what was Jesus?

A nothing who would have long been forgotten already.

[Goat]

.


1. If the resurrection did not occur, who / what was Jesus?

A nothing who would have long been forgotten already.

Really?

How do you know? It appears that Mark has the ressurrection as spiritual, but matthew and luke have it as physical.

Gandhi I think will be remembered for a long time, and I wouldn't be surprised if legends grew from him.

[The Duke of Vandals]

What specific questions/issues/points do you want me to address?

How about you specifically address the parts that aren't red below. You know, the parts you've been evading.

.1. If the resurrection did not occur, who / what was Jesus?

First, there's no "if" about it.

To understand what Jesus was, we have to understand what was going on in Judea in the first century.

Some background: part of Jewish folklore is that the Jews always have heroes who show up to save the day when things are going bad. We see this time and again in Jewish writings.

So, let's look at what was going on in Judea.

After the fire in Rome, the the Romans were taxing the Jews, specifically, for the money to rebuild. This is about 64 ce. So, if you're a Jew, you can expect to be losing another huge percentage of your wealth/income on top of what the Romans already tax you.

About six years after that, the Romans destroy the Jewish temple (except the wailing wall).

If you're a Jew, things are not looking good for you. The Romans are taxing you. They've destroyed your holy place. They occupy your nation. Depressing stuff.

Whenever you find depression of that nature, you'll find people and stories that look to feed off it. The Jews were eager for a hero to come and save them.

Well, what's the next best thing to a hero?

Convincing people that the hero was "just here" and that he'll be back any day now to lay waste to the enemies of Judea.

Into this mix of tears and frustration are stories of radical rabbis from the early first century exagerated into tales of a godman.

Except no one could agree on who or what he was. You had the gnostics and other sects that saw the son of god as a fully spiritual being to be pondered and thought about and who would offer rewards in the afterlife. You have volumes of gospels written by early Christians which later Christians would discard not on any empirical basis, but because they threaten orthodoxy.

From the many conflicting sects of Christians, orthodoxy... with it's easy to remember and emotionally guilt ridden tale of persecution... is the sect of Christianity that wins out over all the others. Like any good victor in history, the early orthodox church establishes that it's assertions about Christianity (the Jesus tale we know today) are "right" and everything else is heresy.

Add into the mix Constantine's conversion to Christianity to gain gurilla fighters against his political enemies and voiala: you have the makings of the religion that (when mixed with worship of Caesar) became the dominant religion of Rome and thus Western civilization.

We know the resurrection didn't occur because it's A) OBVIOUSLY FU**ING IMPOSSIBLE (Christians tend to ignore this) and B) isn't mentioned anywhere by anyone living at the time. We know that second century Christian writers like Athenagoras of Athens were blithely unconcerned with the personhood of Jesus. We know that early Christian writers acknowledged that Jesus' story sounded a lot like pagan mythology that came earlier. Justin martyr's answer? To paraphrase: "Satan invented all those other earlier gods to trick people about Christ". (that's still the church's official standing on the issue, by the way)

So, you have first century writers and scholars living in Judea who are completely unaware of Jesus, second century writers who are convinced Jesus wasn't a person, and 21st century Christians who somehow know Jesus was a person.

2. Was Jesus supernatural?

No.

Jesus was a myth based on pre-existing and readily available Jewish prophecies (it's REALLY easy to fulfill prophecies when you have ancient text in hand and you're re-writing recent history) and earlier pagan gods. He's a tall tale start to finish.

3. What is the meaning of “son of god”?

I'll let Athenagoras explain it to you the same way he explained it to the emperor of Rome in the second century:

• That we are not atheists, therefore, seeing that we acknowledge one God, uncreated, eternal, invisible, impassible, incomprehensible, illimitable, who is apprehended by the understanding only and the reason, who is encompassed by light, and beauty, and spirit, and power ineffable, by whom the universe has been created through His Logos, and set in order, and is kept in being--I have sufficiently demonstrated. [I say "His Logos"], for we acknowledge also a Son of God. Nor let any one think it ridiculous that God should have a Son. For though the poets, in their fictions, represent the gods as no better than men, our mode of thinking is not the same as theirs, concerning either God the Father or the Son. But the Son of God is the Logos of the Father, in idea and in operation; for after the pattern of Him and by Him were all things made, the Father and the Son being one. And, the Son being in the Father and the Father in the Son, in oneness and power of spirit, the understanding and reason (nous kai logos) of the Father is the Son of God. But if, in your surpassing intelligence, it occurs to you to inquire what is meant by the Son, I will state briefly that He is the first product of the Father, not as having been brought into existence (for from the beginning, God, who is the eternal mind [nous], had the Logos in Himself, being from eternity instinct with Logos [logikos]; but inasmuch as He came forth to be the idea and energizing power of all material things,

Incidentally, that's the closest Athenagoras comes to mentioning Jesus in all 37 parts of his essay "A Plea for the Christians" which was meant to be an explanation of Christianity fit for the emperor of Rome.

---------------------------

Sources:

www.jesusneverexisted.com

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... -plea.html

http://www.carotta.de/eindex.html

---------------------------------------------------------

Really?

How do you know? It appears that Mark has the ressurrection as spiritual, but matthew and luke have it as physical.

Gandhi I think will be remembered for a long time, and I wouldn't be surprised if legends grew from him.

Indeed. We've seen time & again through history that human beings don't demand evidence nearly enough. Most people are content with the appearance of evidence. We know Jesus didn't exist. We know that all Christians throughout history have done the same thing: assumed Jesus existed on the basis of indoctrination / the idea that an earlier generation believed it.

[Goat]

Indeed. We've seen time & again through history that human beings don't demand evidence nearly enough. Most people are content with the appearance of evidence. We know Jesus didn't exist. We know that all Christians throughout history have done the same thing: assumed Jesus existed on the basis of indoctrination / the idea that an earlier generation believed it.

I would specifically say that Jesus as described by the Gospels never existed. Although I have no evidence, I would not be totally surprised if there was the basis for the stories that grew up. I further would say that the person who inspired the later stories is probably so different than the stories as to be unrecognizable.

[Flail]

How could anyone know the anwers to these questions? ....and who would care?

[Cathar1950]

Indeed. We've seen time & again through history that human beings don't demand evidence nearly enough. Most people are content with the appearance of evidence. We know Jesus didn't exist. We know that all Christians throughout history have done the same thing: assumed Jesus existed on the basis of indoctrination / the idea that an earlier generation believed it.

I would specifically say that Jesus as described by the Gospels never existed. Although I have no evidence, I would not be totally surprised if there was the basis for the stories that grew up. I further would say that the person who inspired the later stories is probably so different than the stories as to be unrecognizable.

I tend side with Goat here and think The Duke of Vandals has overstated the case.
On the other hand indoctrination does play a large role. .True enough most are content with little or no evidence and even if it were completely ahistorical would not be that far fetched. We don't know what they even meant by "according to scripture". Did it mean the Hebrew writings in the Greek LXX they used or other writings such as Daniel, Enoch and Jubilees or even others lost to us?
Did Jesus do the things in "according to scripture" or did they find thing in scripture and made the Jesus story fit, even if poorly.
The earliest writings say so little about his life and teaching and almost seem beyond time. There are questions about his first coming and the second and some even wonder if the “Son of Man” was another figure he might have been expecting and not himself and his followers were confused or maybe Jesus was confused. The writings are not historical eyewitness accounts and don't seem t have been meant to be. They are tales of faith not fact and they grew and evolved as did believers. I tend to think the Ebonite tradition would be the closest to early Jewish Christianity and it seems many of the early Christians saw themselves as the body of their Christ where any idea of a bodily resurrection would be needless where Jesus was to rewarded for his faithfulness and by participating in his faithfulness they were also saved. This seems to be their sense of faith and not the idea of belief as a proposition promoted by others we have today. One OT prophet tells us not everyone that calls on the name of the Lord will be saved while Paul tells us everyone that calls on the name of the Lord will be saved if they simply believe. As one author explains it is easier to catch people with honey then vinegar or was it flies?
It isn't all that clear is it?

[The Duke of Vandals]

I would specifically say that Jesus as described by the Gospels never existed. Although I have no evidence, I would not be totally surprised if there was the basis for the stories that grew up.

Oh, there's evidence. http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/myth.html

[Goat]

I would specifically say that Jesus as described by the Gospels never existed. Although I have no evidence, I would not be totally surprised if there was the basis for the stories that grew up.

Oh, there's evidence. http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/myth.html

Can you say for sure that the Samaritan Messiah is not the basis for Paul's claim that Jesus was executed by Pilate?

[twobitsmedia]

Gandhi I think will be remembered for a long time, and I wouldn't be surprised if legends grew from him.

In time legends grow from anything. Has nothing to do with reality. Elvis, JFK, etc.

[Goat]

Gandhi I think will be remembered for a long time, and I wouldn't be surprised if legends grew from him.

In time legends grow from anything. Has nothing to do with reality. Elvis, JFK, etc.

Exactly. That is what I believe is the Jesus stories.